South Campus is represented in USAC
In regard to Katrina Oh’s column on Nov. 25, “Scientists must work to cure government underrepresentation,” Timothy Mullins, USAC facilities commissioner, is not the only student with a South Campus major on USAC. I am the Student Welfare commissioner, and I am a fourth-year molecular, cell and developmental biology student. D’Juan Farmer, the Financial Support commissioner, is also studying MCDB.
While South Campus classes are very demanding and grade-oriented, students who take those classes still manage to find time to be very involved on campus. However, what differs is the choice in activities in which the two sides of campus choose to participate.
While USAC has little influence in South Campus, if you look at the people involved in the Student Welfare Commission, the majority of them have South Campus majors. Are they not part of USAC? Scientists are not encouraged to participate in politics. However, policy and legislation can make as much of a difference in people’s lives as the next blockbuster drug. I encourage all scientists to become involved in policy and increase the diversity of perspectives in our ruling body. Policy at all levels eventually affects us all.
Lucy Wu
Fourth-year, molecular, cell and developmental biology
USAC Student Welfare commissioner
Columnist correct: Regents not racists
Jordan Manalastas’ column about the UC Regents supposed “racist” agenda (“Fee hikes were wrongfully assumed to be issue of race,” Nov. 30) was the best column I have read at UCLA.
People who claim that the fee hikes are somehow racist make two sweeping generalizations. One, that all non-minority students are wealthy enough not to be affected by the fee hikes, and two, that all minority students are lower-income students. These two generalizations are obviously wrong and should be inspected for their own racist attributes.
The fee hikes will end up affecting the middle-class students the most because students coming from families making under $70,000 a year will pay nothing of the increase. As a student from a middle-class family, I will have the burden of the full tuition increase, and while I am not happy with it, I understand that it is necessary to raise tuition in order to prevent the loss of faculty and uphold the quality of education.
The column also mentions how the UC system is raising the minimum SAT scores that are to be accepted and how this move is being deemed racist by some. How can this possibly be racist? The UC system is interested in acquiring the best students from around the world, regardless of race, and a great indication of academic aptitude is a high SAT score and a high GPA. In fact, the UC system should only count a student’s GPA, SAT score and participation in extra-curricular activities. To say that this process would somehow be racist would once again make an egregious generalization that the UC system must lower standards so that minority students can compete with other students. Isn’t that insulting the intelligence of minority students? Isn’t it completely unfair to accept a less-qualified student who is a so-called “underrepresented minority” over a more qualified student who is from a “model minority” background such as Indian American, East Asian American or Persian American?
Please continue to write on race and education, as few students are brave enough to do so.
Owen Lutje
Fifth-year, mechanical engineering